Knowledge Management, (KM) is a concept and a term that arose approximately

two decades ago, roughly in 1990. Quite simply one might say that it means
organizing an organizations in!ormation and "nowledge holistically, #ut that
sounds a #it wooly, and surprisingly enough, e$en though it sounds o$er#road, it is
not the whole picture. %ery early on in the KM mo$ement, &a$enport (199')
o!!ered the still widely (uoted de!inition)
*Knowledge management is the process o! capturing, distri#uting, and e!!ecti$ely
using "nowledge.*
+his de!inition has the $irtue o! #eing simple, star", and to the point. , !ew years
later, the -artner -roup created another second de!inition o! KM, which is
perhaps the most !re(uently cited one (&uhon, 199.))
*Knowledge management is a discipline that promotes an integrated approach to
identi!ying, capturing, e$aluating, retrie$ing, and sharing all o! an enterprises
in!ormation assets. +hese assets may include data#ases, documents, policies,
procedures, and pre$iously un/captured expertise and experience in indi$idual
wor"ers.*
0oth de!initions share a $ery organizational, a $ery corporate orientation. KM,
historically at least, is primarily a#out managing the "nowledge o! and in
organizations.
+he operational origin o! KM, as the term is understood today, arose within the
consulting community and !rom there the principles o! KM were rather rapidly
spread #y the consulting organizations to other disciplines. +he consulting !irms
(uic"ly realized the potential o! the 1ntranet !la$or o! the 1nternet !or lin"ing
together their own geographically dispersed and "nowledge/#ased organizations.
2nce ha$ing gained expertise in how to ta"e ad$antage o! intranets to connect
across their organizations and to share and manage in!ormation and "nowledge,
they then understood that the expertise they had gained was a product that could
#e sold to other organizations. , new product o! course needed a name, and the
name chosen, or at least arri$ed at, was Knowledge Management. +he timing was
propitious, as the enthusiasm !or intellectual capital in the 19.0s, had primed the
pump !or the recognition o! in!ormation and "nowledge as essential assets !or any
organization.
3erhaps the most central thrust in KM is to capture and ma"e a$aila#le, so it can
#e used #y others in the organization, the in!ormation and "nowledge that is in
peoples heads as it were, and that has ne$er #een explicitly set down.
4hat is still pro#a#ly the #est graphic to try to set !orth what KM is constituted o!,
is the graphic de$eloped #y 10M !or the use o! their KM consultants, #ased on the
distinction #etween collecting stu!! (content) and connecting people, presented
here with minor modi!ications (the mar$elous 5, 6, and 7 mnemonics are entirely
10Ms))

528865+19- (:+;<<) =
52&1<15,+129
529965+19- (362386) =
36>:29,81?,+129
&1>65+6&
19<2>M,+129 =
K92486&-6
:6,>57
6@3821+
&ata#ases, external =
internal
5ontent ,rchitecture
1n!ormation :er$ice
:upport (training re(uired)
data mining #est
practices A lessons
learnedAa!ter action analysis
(7,>%6:+)
community =
learning
directories, *yellow
pages* (expertise
locators)
!indings = !acilitating
tools, groupware
response teams
(7,>96::)
:6>69&131+B =
0>24:19-
6@382>6
5ultural support
current awareness
pro!iles and data#ases
selection o! items !or
alerting purposes A push
data mining #est
practices
(7;9+19-)
5ultural support
spaces / li#raries =
lounges (literal = $irtual),
cultural support,
groupware
tra$el = meeting
attendance
(7B32+76:1?6)
<rom) +om :hort, :enior consultant, Knowledge Management, 10M -lo#al
:er$ices
,nother way to $iew and de!ine KM is to descri#e KM as the mo$ement to
replicate the in!ormation en$ironment "nown to #e conduci$e to success!ul >=&
Crich, deep, and open communication and in!ormation accessCand deploy it
#roadly across the !irm. 1t is almost trite now to o#ser$e that we are in the post/
industrial in!ormation age and that an increasingly large proportion o! the wor"ing
population consists o! in!ormation wor"ers. +he role o! the researcher, considered
the (uintessential in!ormation wor"er, has #een studied in depth with a !ocus on
identi!ying en$ironmental aspects that lead to success!ul research (Koenig, 1990,
199D), and the strongest relationship #y !ar is with in!ormation and "nowledge
access and communication. 1t is (uite logical then to attempt to apply those same
success!ul en$ironmental aspects to "nowledge wor"ers at large, and that is what
in !act KM attempts to do.
6xplicit, 1mplicit and +acit Knowledge
1n the KM literature, "nowledge is most commonly categorized as either explicit
or tacit (that which is in peoples heads). +his characterization is howe$er rather
too simple, #ut a more important point, and a criticism, is that it is misleading. ,
much more nuanced and use!ul characterization is to descri#e "nowledge as
explicit, implicit, and tacit.
6xplicit) in!ormation or "nowledge that is set out in tangi#le !orm.
1mplicit) in!ormation or "nowledge that is not set out in tangi#le !orm #ut could #e
made explicit.
+acit) in!ormation or "nowledge that one would ha$e extreme di!!iculty
operationally setting out in tangi#le !orm.
+he classic example in the KM literature o! true *tacit* "nowledge is 9ona"a and
+a"euchis example o! the "inesthetic "nowledge that was necessary to design and
engineer a home #read ma"er, "nowledge that could only #e gained or trans!erred
#y ha$ing engineers wor" alongside #read ma"ers and learn the motions and the
*!eel* necessary to "nead #read dough (9ona"a = +a"euchi, 199E).
+he danger o! the explicit/tacit dichotomy is that #y descri#ing "nowledge with
only two categories, i.e., explicit, that which is set out in tangi#le !orm, and tacit,
that which is within people, is that it then #ecomes easy to thin" o$erly
simplistically in terms o! explicit "nowledge, which calls !or *collecting* KM
methodologies, and tacit "nowledge, which calls !or *connecting* KM
methodologies, and to o$erloo" the !act that, in many cases, what may #e needed
is to con$ert implicit tacit "nowledge to explicit "nowledge, !or example the a!ter
action reports and de#rie!ings descri#ed #elow.
4hat does KM really consist o!F 4hat operationally constitutes KMF
:o what is in$ol$ed in KMF +he most o#$ious point is the ma"ing o! the
organizations data and in!ormation a$aila#le to the mem#ers o! the organization
through portals and with the use o! content management systems. 5ontent
Management, sometimes "nown as 6nterprise 5ontent Management, is the most
immediate and o#$ious part o! KM. <or a wonder!ul graphic snapshot o! the
content management domain go to realstorygroup.com and loo" at their D01D
5ontent +echnology %endor Map.
1n addition to the o#$ious, howe$er, there are three underta"ings that are
(uintessentially KM, and those are the #ases !or most o! what is descri#ed as KM.
(1) 8essons 8earned &ata#ases
8essons 8earned data#ases are data#ases that attempt to capture and to ma"e
accessi#le "nowledge that has #een operationally o#tained and typically would not
ha$e #een captured in a !ixed medium (to use copyright terminology). 1n the KM
context, the emphasis is typically upon capturing "nowledge em#edded in persons
and ma"ing it explicit. +he lessons learned concept or practice is one that might
#e descri#ed as ha$ing #een #irthed #y KM, as there is $ery little in the way o! a
direct antecedent. 6arly in the KM mo$ement, the phrase typically used was *#est
practices,* #ut that phrase was soon replaced with *lessons learned.* +he reasons
were that *lessons learned* was a #roader and more inclusi$e term and #ecause
*#est practice* seemed too restricti$e and could #e interpreted as meaning there
was only one #est practice in a situation. 4hat might #e a #est practice in 9orth
,merican culture might well not #e a #est practice in another culture. +he maGor
international consulting !irms were $ery aware o! this and led the mo$ement to
su#stitute the new term. *0est 3ractices* succeeded #y *8essons 8earned* #ecame
the most common hallmar" phrase o! early KM de$elopment.
9othing o! course is totally new and without something that can #e $iewed as a
predecessor. 2ne such possi#le antecedent was the 4orld 4ar 11 de#rie!ing o!
pilots a!ter a mission. +he primary purpose was to gather military intelligence, #ut
a clear secondary purpose was to identi!y lessons learned, though they were not so
named, to pass on to other pilots and instructors. :imilarly, the ;. :. 9a$y
:u#marine :er$ice, a!ter an em#arrassingly lengthy !iasco o! torpedoes that !ailed
to detonate properly and an e$en more em#arrassing !ailure to !ollow up on su#
captains consistent torpedo !ailure reports, instituted a system o! widely
disseminated *5aptains 3atrol >eports* with the intent o! a$oiding any such
!iasco in the !uture. +he 5aptains 3atrol >eports were $ery clearly designed to
encourage analytical reporting, with reasoned analyses o! the reasons !or !ailure
and success. 1t was emphasized that a "ey purpose o! the report was to ma"e
recommendations a#out strategy !or senior o!!icers to mull o$er and a#out tactics
!or other s"ippers to ta"e ad$antage o! (Mc1nerney and Koenig, D011).
+he military has #ecome an a$id proponent o! the lessons learned concept. +he
phrase the military uses is *,!ter ,ction >eports.* +he concept is $ery simple)
dont rely on someone to ma"e a report. +here will almost always #e too many
things immediately demanding that persons attention a!ter an action. +here should
#e a system where#y someone, typically someone in KM, is assigned the
responsi#ility to de#rie!, separate the wheat !rom the cha!!, create the report, and
then ensure that the lessons learned are captured and disseminated.
+he concept is #y no means limited to the military. 8arry 3rusa" (D00') opines
that in the corporate world the num#er one KM implementation !ailure is that so
o!ten the proGect team is dis#anded and the team mem#ers reassigned #e!ore there
is any de#rie!ing or a!ter/action report assem#led. 2rganizations operating in a
proGect team milieu need to pay $ery close attention to this issue and to set up an
a!ter/ action procedure with clearly delineated responsi#ility !or its
implementation.
, wonder!ully instructi$e example o! a *lesson learned* is recounted #y KM
consultant Mar" Mazzie (D00H). +he story deri$es !rom his experience in the KM
department at 4yeth 3harmaceuticals. 4yeth had recently introduced a new
pharmaceutical agent primarily !or pediatric use. +hey expected it to #e a
su#stantial success #ecause, unli"e its predecessors, it needed to #e administered
only once a day, which would ma"e it much easier !or the caregi$er to ensure that
the child !ollowed the drug regimen. :ales o! the drug started well, #ut soon turned
disappointing. 2ne sales rep (what the pharmaceutical industry used to call detail
men), howe$er, disco$ered, #y chatting with her customers, the reason !or the
disappointing sales and disco$ered the solution. +he pro#lem was that "ids
o#Gected strenuously to the taste o! the drug, and caregi$ers were reporting to
prescri#ing physicians that they couldnt get their "id to continue ta"ing the drug.
+he solution was orange Guice. , swig o! orange Guice (uite e!!ecti$ely mas"ed the
o!!ensi$e taste. 1! the sales rep illuminated the physician that the therapy should #e
con$eyed to the caregi$er as the pill and a glass o! orange Guice ta"en
simultaneously !irst thing in the morning, then there was no dissatis!action and
sales were !ine.
+he implementation o! a lessons learned system is complex #oth politically and
operationally. Many o! the (uestions surrounding such a system are di!!icult to
answer. 4ho is to decide what constitutes a worthwhile lesson learnedF ,re
employees !ree to su#mit to the system un/$ettedF Most success!ul lessons learned
implementations ha$e concluded that such a system needs to #e monitored and
that there needs to #e a $etting and appro$al mechanism #e!ore items are mounted
as lessons learned. 7ow long do items stay in the systemF 4ho decides when an
item is no longer salient and timelyF Most success!ul lessons learned systems ha$e
an acti$e weeding or strati!ication process. 4ithout a clearly designed process !or
weeding, the proportion o! new and crisp items ine$ita#ly declines, the system
#egins to loo" stale and usage and utility !alls. &eletion, o! course, is not
necessarily loss and destruction. ;sing strati!ication principles, items remo$ed
!rom the !oreground can #e archi$ed and mo$ed to the #ac"ground #ut still made
a$aila#le.
,ll these (uestions need to #e care!ully thought out and resol$ed, and the
mechanisms designed and put in place #e!ore a lessons/learned system is
launched. 1nattention can easily lead to !ailure and the tarring o! su#se(uent e!!orts
(D) 6xpertise 8ocation
1! "nowledge resides in people, then one o! the #est ways to learn what an expert
"nows is to tal" with that expert. 8ocating the right expert with the "nowledge you
need, though, can #e a pro#lem. +he #asic !unction o! an expertise locator system
is straight!orward) it is to identi!y and locate those persons within an organization
who ha$e expertise in a particular area. :uch systems were commonly "nown as
*Bellow 3age* systems in the early days o! KM. 1n recent years, the term expertise
locator or expertise location has replaced yellow pages as #eing rather more
precise.
+here are now three areas which typically supply data !or an expertise locator
system, employee resumes, employee sel! identi!ication o! areas o! expertise,
typically #y #eing re(uested to !ill out a !orm online, or #y algorithmic analysis o!
electronic communications !rom and to the employee. +he latter approach is
typically #ased on email tra!!ic #ut can include other social networ"ing electronic
communications such as +witter and <ace#oo". 5ommercial pac"ages to match
(ueries with expertise are a$aila#le. Most o! them ha$e load/#alancing schemes so
as not to o$erload any particular expert. +ypically such systems ran" the degree o!
presumed expertise and will shi!t a (uery down the expertise ran"ing when the
higher choices appear to #e #ecoming o$erloaded. :uch systems also o!ten ha$e a
!eature #y which the re(uester can !lag the re(uest as a priority, and the system
will then try to match higher priority re(uests with higher presumed (calculated)
expertise ran".
(H) 5ommunities o! 3ractice (5o3s)
5o3s are groups o! indi$iduals with shared interests that come together in person
or $irtually to tell stories, to share and discuss pro#lems and opportunities, discuss
#est practices, and tal" o$er lessons learned (4enger, 199.I 4enger = :nyder,
1999). 5ommunities o! practice emphasize the social nature o! learning within or
across organizations. 5on$ersations around the water cooler are o!ten ta"en !or
granted, #ut in geographically distri#uted organizations the water cooler needs to
#ecome $irtual. :imilarly, organizations !ind that when wor"ers gi$e up a
company o!!ice to wor" online !rom home or on the road, the natural "nowledge
sharing that occurs in social spaces must #e replicated $irtually. 1n the context o!
KM, 5o3s are generally understood to mean electronically lin"ed communities.
6lectronic lin"age is not essential, o! course, #ut since KM arose in the consulting
community !rom the awareness o! the potential o! 1ntranets to lin" geographically
dispersed organizations, this orientation is understanda#le and ine$ita#le.
+he classic example o! the deployment o! 5o3s is that o! the 4orld 0an". 4hen
James 4ol!ensohn #ecame president in 199E, he !ocused on the 4orld 0an"s role
in disseminating "nowledge a#out de$elopment. +o that end he encouraged the
de$elopment o! 5o3s. , 5o3 might, !or example, !ocus on road construction and
maintenance in arid conditions, and the point would #e to include not only
participants !rom the 4orld 0an" and the country where the rele$ant proGect was
#eing implemented, #ut also participants !rom elsewhere who had expertise in
#uilding roads in arid conditions, such as sta!! !rom the ,ustralian >oad >esearch
0oard and the ,rizona &epartment o! +ransportation.
+he organization and maintenance o! 5o3s is not a simple or easy underta"ing. ,s
&urham (D00') points out, there are se$eral "ey roles to #e !illed, which she
descri#es as manager, moderator, and thought leader. +hey need not necessarily #e
three separate people, #ut in some cases they will need to #e. <or a 5o3 some
(uestions that need to #e thought a#out are)
4ho !ills the $arious roles o!) manager, moderator, and thought leaderF
7ow is the 5o3 managedF
,re postings open or does someone $et or edit the postingsF
7ow is the 5o3 "ept !resh and $italF
4hen and how (under what rules) are items remo$edF
7ow are those items archi$edF
4ho re$iews the 5o3 !or acti$ityF
4ho loo"s !or new mem#ers or suggests that the 5o3 may ha$e outli$ed its
use!ulnessF
+he :tages o! &e$elopment o! KM
8oo"ing at KM historically through the stages o! its de$elopment tells us not only
a#out the history o! KM, #ut it also re$eals a great deal a#out what constitutes
KM.
<irst :tage o! KM) 1n!ormation +echnology
+he initial stage o! KM was dri$en primarily #y 1+, in!ormation technology. +hat
!irst stage has #een descri#ed using an e(uestrian metaphor as K#y the internet out
o! intellectual capitalL. +he concept o! intellectual capital pro$ided the
Gusti!ication and the !ramewor", the seed, and the a$aila#ility o! the internet
pro$ided the tool. ,s descri#ed a#o$e, the consulting community Gumped at the
new capa#ilities pro$ided #y the 1nternet, using it !irst !or themsel$es, realizing
that i! they shared "nowledge across their organization more e!!ecti$ely, then they
could a$oid rein$enting the wheel, under#id their competitors, and ma"e more
pro!it. +he !irst use o! the term Knowledge Management in the new context
appears to ha$e #een at McKinsey. +hey realized (uic"ly that they had a
compelling new product. 6rnst and Boung organized the !irst con!erence on KM in
199D in 0oston (3rusa", 1999). +he salient point is that the !irst stage o! KM was
a#out how to deploy that new technology to accomplish more e!!ecti$e use o!
in!ormation and "nowledge.
+he !irst stage might #e descri#ed as the K1! only +exas 1nstruments "new what
+exas 1nstruments "newL stage, to re$isit a much (uoted aphorism. +he hallmar"
phrase o! :tage 1 was !irst K#est practices,L to #e replaced #y the more politic
Klessons learned.L
:econd :tage o! KM) 7> and 5orporate 5ulture
+he second stage o! KM emerged when it #ecame apparent that simply deploying
new technology was not su!!icient to e!!ecti$ely ena#le in!ormation and
"nowledge sharing. 7uman and cultural dimensions needed to #e addressed. +he
second stage might #e descri#ed as the K M1! you #uild it they will comeN is a
!allacyL stageCthe recognition that K1! you #uild it they will comeL is a recipe
that can easily lead to (uic" and em#arrassing !ailure i! human !actors are not
su!!iciently ta"en into account.
1t #ecame clear that KM implementation would in$ol$e changes in the corporate
culture, in many cases rather signi!icant changes. 5onsider the case a#o$e o! the
new pediatric medicine and the disco$ery o! the e!!icacy o! adding orange Guice to
the recipe. 3harmaceutical sales reps are compensated primarily not #y salary, #ut
#y #onuses #ased on sales results. 4hat is in it !or that sales rep to share her new
disco$ery when the most li"ely result is that next year her #onus would #e
su#stantially reducedF +he changes in corporate culture needed to !acilitate and
encourage in!ormation and "nowledge sharing can #e maGor and pro!ound. KM
there!ore extends !ar #eyond Gust structuring in!ormation and "nowledge and
ma"ing it more accessi#le.
,s this recognition un!olded, two maGor themes !rom the #usiness literature were
#rought into the KM !old. +he !irst was :engeNs wor" on the learning organization
(:enge, 3eter M., 1990 +he <i!th &iscipline) +he ,rt and 3ractice o! the 8earning
2rganization.) +he second was 9ona"aNs wor" on KtacitL "nowledge and how to
disco$er and culti$ate it (9ona"a, 1"uGiro = +a"euchi, 7irota"a, 199E +he
Knowledge/5reating 5ompany) 7ow Japanese 5ompanies 5reate the &ynamics
o! 1nno$ation.) 0oth were not only a#out the human !actors o! KM
implementation and useI they were also a#out "nowledge creation as well as
"nowledge sharing and communication. +he hallmar" phrase o! :tage D was
Kcommunities o! practice.L , good mar"er o! the shi!t !rom the !irst to the second
stage o! KM is that !or the 199. 5on!erence 0oard con!erence on KM, there was
!or the !irst time a noticea#le contingent o! attendees !rom 7>, human resources,
departments, and #y the next year, 1999, 7> was the largest single group,
displacing 1+ attendees !rom !irst place.
+hird :tage o! KM) +axonomy and 5ontent Management
+he third stage de$eloped !rom the awareness o! the importance o! content, and in
particular the awareness o! the importance o! the retrie$a#ility o! content, and
there!ore o! the importance o! the arrangement, description, and structure o! that
content. :ince a good alternati$e description !or the second stage o! KM is the
KitNs no good i! they donNt use itL stage, then in that $ein, perhaps the #est
description !or the new third stage is the KitNs no good i! they try to use it #ut canNt
!ind itL stage. ,nother #ellwether is that +<38Ns report o! their 2cto#er D001 5K2
(5hie! Knowledge 2!!icer) :ummit reported that !or the !irst time taxonomies
emerged as a topic, and it emerged !ull #lown as a maGor topic (+<38, D001
Knowledge :trategies O 5orporate :trategies.) +he hallmar" phrases emerging !or
the third stage are content management (or enterprise content management) and
taxonomies.. ,t KM4orld D000 a trac" on 5ontent Management appeared !or the
!irst time, and #y the D001 KM4orld 5on!erence, 5ontent Management had
#ecome the dominant trac". 1n D00P, KM4orld added a two/day wor"shop
entitled +axonomy 0oot 5amp, which still exists today. +he hallmar" terms !or the
third stage o! KM are taxonomy and content.
2ther KM 1ssues
2ne issue is the need to retain the "nowledge o! retirees. 2! course the !act that
the #a#y #oomer #ulge is now reaching retirement age is ma"ing this issue
particularly salient. KM techni(ues are $ery rele$ant to this issue. 2ne techni(ue
is the application o! the lessons learned ideaCGust treat the retireeNs career as a
long proGect that is coming to its end and create an a!ter action report, a massi$e
data dump. +his idea seems o#$ious, #ut only in special cases is it li"ely to #e $ery
use!ul.
Much more li"ely to #e use!ul is to "eep the retiree in$ol$ed, maintain him or her
in the 5o3s and !inda#le through expertise locater systems. +he real utility is
li"ely to #e !ound not directly in the in!ormation that the retiree lea$es #ehind, #ut
in new "nowledge created #y the interaction o! the retiree with current employees.
+he retiree says *it occurs to me that ...* and elicits a response something li"e
Kyes, #ut here ...,L a discussion un!olds, the retiree contri#utes some o! the needed
expertise, and a solution is generated. +he solution arises not directly !rom the
retireeNs "nowledge #ut rather !rom the interaction.
,nother maGor de$elopment is the expansion o! KM #eyond the D0th century
$ision o! KM as the organizationNs "nowledge as descri#ed in the -artner -roup
de!inition o! KM. 1ncreasingly KM is seen as ideally encompassing the whole
#andwidth o! in!ormation and "nowledge li"ely to #e use!ul to an organization,
including "nowledge external to the organizationC"nowledge emanating !rom
$endors, suppliers, customers, etc., and "nowledge originating in the scienti!ic and
scholarly community, the traditional domain o! the li#rary world. 8oo"ed at in this
light, KM extends into en$ironmental scanning and competiti$e intelligence.
1s KM here to stay F
+he answer certainly appears to #e yes. +he most compelling analysis is the
#i#liometric one, simply counting the num#er o! articles in the #usiness literature
and comparing that to other #usiness enthusiasms. Most #usiness enthusiasms
grow rapidly and reach a pea" a!ter a#out !i$e years, and then decline almost as
rapidly as they grew.
0elow are the graphs !or three hot management topics (or !ads) o! recent years)
Quality 5ircles, 19QQ/19.P
:ource) ,#rahamson ,199P
+otal Quality Management,
1990/D001
:ource) 3onzi = Koenig,
D00D
0usiness 3rocess
>eengineering, 1990/D001
:ource) 3onzi = Koenig,
D00D
KM loo"s dramatically di!!erent)
+his graphs charts the num#er o! articles in the #usiness literature with the phrase
KKnowledge ManagementL in the title.
1! we chart the num#er o! articles in the #usiness literature with the phrase
KKnowledge ManagementL or the a##re$iation KKML in the title, we get the chart
#elow, with an order o! magnitude more literature)
1t does indeed loo" as though KM is no mere enthusiasmI KM is here to stay.